Nikola Radin, economist, authorized internal auditor in the public sector and executive director of the organization "Belgrade on the move", speaks for "Vreme" about the financial management of the city of Belgrade, abuses of the budget, rigging of tenders, as well as free programs that come to be paid for in the long term.
"WEATHER" We often hear that money from the budget of the city of Belgrade is irresponsibly spent and misused. Since when has that been the case and what does it actually mean?
NIKOLA RADIN: Unfortunately, Belgrade has become the capital of favoritism, corruption and organized economic crime not only in Serbia, but also in the entire region. Irresponsible spending of Belgrade's budget is not a new phenomenon and cannot be linked to one mandate or one decision. However, in recent years it has taken on a clear systemic character. Today we are talking about a management model in which there is no clear connection between the real needs of the city, serious planning and long-term effects on public finances. It is particularly problematic that the current government in Belgrade presents itself as "the most socially responsible", while the so-called free measures - kindergartens, public transport, student aid - are awarded to everyone linearly, without any distinction based on socio-economic status.
In practice, this means that citizens' money is spent primarily on a political basis - for measures that bring quick political points and personal benefit, and not for sustainable public policies. In such an environment, the budget becomes an ATM for privileged companies and individuals who repeatedly get business with the City of Belgrade at significantly inflated prices. When favoritism and corruption are connected and institutionally protected, you get a "perfect storm" that empties the city budget, that is, steals money from the citizens of Belgrade.
You mentioned that the city of Belgrade will have to take on additional debt next year in order to cover it "free" programs. What is the amount and what does it mean for citizens?
Based on publicly available data on revenues, expenditures and existing obligations, our conservative estimate is that the City of Belgrade will borrow at least 15 billion dinars in 2026, and it is almost certain that this amount will be significantly higher. The complete picture becomes visible only when all the obligations due, but also hidden until now, are taken into account. New loans are no longer taken for capital projects that create new value, but to cover current consumption. Due to this way of borrowing, citizens can already expect an increase in the price of utility services during the second quarter, because the loan will not be returned by itself, but through higher bills and new burdens.
So-called "free" programs are not a problem in themselves. The problem arises when they are introduced without stable and sustainable sources of funding. In that case, "free" becomes just another name for a deferred bill, which always ends up being billed to citizens. As an organization, we stand for complete transparency of the budget, to clearly see where every dinar goes and on what basis decisions are made about spending public money. Instead, the public is still waiting for the session of the City Assembly, so that only then will they find out what really awaits us in the next year when it comes to the city's finances and the budget for 2026.
An additional problem is that citizens do not participate in making decisions about what will be done in the coming year. Such a management model inevitably produces an uneven, uneven and unequal development of Belgrade, in which funds are not allocated according to real needs but according to political priorities.
It seems that many decisions in the city government are made ad hoc and without a clear and continuous plan. Why?
Today, Belgrade does not have a binding mid-term development and financing plan that is consistently implemented. Decisions are therefore made in the short term, often in response to political or media pressure, rather than as part of a deliberate strategy. In such an environment, there is no continuity, no clearly set priorities and no real responsibility for the consequences that appear only after a few years.
When there is no plan that binds all actors, each new decision becomes an isolated case. Thus, the strategic direction is lost, and the city begins to function according to the principle of "fighting fires". It is essentially contrary to the way a city of the size, complexity and importance of Belgrade should be run.
What do you think are the biggest failings in the city's governance over the past few years?, seen from the auditing point of view?
photo: phonet...
From the auditing point of view, the biggest failure in the management of the city in the last few years is the absence of a functional management system. There is no clear and consistent connection between set goals, planning and actual spending of budget funds. The performance is almost not measured at all, it is not monitored whether the spent money produced the expected results, and risk management is practically neglected.
This is compounded by the fact that laws and regulations are violated at almost every step. The most obvious example is the violation of the Law on Public Enterprises, which clearly and unequivocally stipulates that an acting director cannot be appointed for a period longer than one year. In Belgrade, however, the last competition for directors of public and public utility companies was held back in 2018. Today, we have a situation in which most of these companies are managed by people who have been acting for many years, often without publicly available biographies and without fulfilling the basic legal requirements for those positions.
Of particular concern is the fact that debt growth and future obligations are systematically relegated to the background, while current spending is publicly presented as a success. Such an approach may create a semblance of stability in the short term, but in the long term it inevitably leads to serious fiscal problems. It is not a question of political attitude or ideology, but of respect for the basic principles of responsible, legal and professional management of public finances.
You mention rigged acquisitions and wasting money through them. Which ones specifically are you referring to??
We are talking about public procurements that have been repeated for years in an almost identical pattern and that can no longer be viewed as individual incidents. A small number of bidders, often only one, bids that almost completely match the estimated value and technical conditions written so that they can be fulfilled by an extremely narrow circle of companies clearly indicate that the outcome of the procedure is not uncertain but known in advance. This is not a coincidence, but an established modus operandi.
One of the most obvious examples is the multi-year rental of trucks used by City Cleanliness. Although new vehicles are purchased every year, in parallel, for the third year in a row, trucks are being purchased for rental. So far, more than 900 million dinars have been agreed for these jobs, with an almost identical scenario: one bidder and a price that differs from the estimated value by less than one percent, which practically excludes the existence of real competition.
A similar pattern can be seen in the case of the company Begman Production, founded at the end of 2023, with two employees, which in less than a year achieved an increase in income of over 1000 percent, almost exclusively through business with the City of Belgrade. According to publicly available data, the income of this company increased from about 22 million dinars in 2023 to over 230 million dinars in 2024, after receiving the contract for the "Belgrade Winter" event, worth 271,8 million dinars without VAT, in which the company, as the group's leader, withdrew more than 149 million dinars from the city budget. Already next year, he gets a new job for the "Belgrade Summer 2025" event.
Of particular concern is the fact that tenders for such jobs are repeated with predictable outcomes, so the public is rightly wondering whether these are competitive procedures or a formal cover for pre-agreed decisions. The same pattern is present in large infrastructure procurements. An example is the tender of the Secretariat for Transport for the "modernization of traffic light signaling", worth 750 million dinars, whose documentation is written in such a way that in practice it corresponds to one bidder. The epilogue is that the modernization of one intersection in Belgrade costs about 18,7 million dinars, while the same work in Podgorica was carried out at a cost of about six million dinars per intersection.
When the same patterns are repeated in different sectors, with different clients and with the same type of outcome, we are no longer talking about mistakes or omissions, but about a system in which public procurement has been turned into a mechanism for continuously extracting money from the city budget.
How the tender rigging scheme works in practice?
In practice, the public procurement procedure is formally carried out in accordance with the law, but the essence is decided before the tender is even announced. Official data show that in more than 50 percent of public procurement procedures in Serbia, only one bidder appears, while in the procurements of the City of Belgrade and companies whose founders and managers the City owns, that percentage is noticeably higher.
When you look at the Public Procurement Portal and specifically the procurements of the City of Belgrade and the city's public and public utility companies, you must make a serious effort to find procedures that are not, to say the least, suspicious. The pattern is constantly repeated: one bidder, the offered price that differs from the estimated value by less than one percent, and the technical conditions adapted to that particular bidder. In such circumstances, the outcome of the proceedings is not uncertain but known in advance.
In earlier years, at least formally, there were several bidders, which in itself does not mean that the jobs were not agreed in advance. So-called "stunt" companies often appeared, whose only task was to create the appearance of competition and fulfill the legal form. Today, however, even that semblance is no longer there - competition has completely disappeared in a large number of procedures.
The most problematic are procurements related to software, IT equipment and various services. It is precisely in these areas that temporary, expensive and difficult to verify solutions appear most often, with prices that are significantly increased compared to real market values. Instead of permanent and rational solutions, the city pays for expensive services that are repeated year after year, which creates additional pressure on the budget in the long term. This is not about the shortcomings of the Law on Public Procurement, but about its systematic abuse - the law exists, but it is used as a cover for pre-agreed deals.
Why don't institutions react to such phenomena?
The problem is not that the institutions do not see what is happening, but that they have largely lost their basic function - to act independently and in a timely manner. Control mechanisms exist on paper, but in practice they are reduced to form without substance.
Responsibility is diluted in the system. Decisions are made collectively, signed at multiple levels, and when problems arise, it is almost impossible to determine personal responsibility. Without the political will to insist on legality and accountability, institutions remain powerless. The law is formally respected, while its purpose is completely rendered meaningless. Almost every day in the media you can read about dubious public procurement, favoritism and potential corruption, but it seems that the SAI, the Prosecutor's Office or the UKP either do not follow the media or are part of this corrupt scheme, because there is no example that they even looked at, let alone investigated, any of these "media" cases.
How to recover the city's coffers?
The recovery of the city coffers does not begin with new loans, but with the establishment of control over expenditures. The first and indispensable step must be the complete transparency of spending public money and stopping wastage through non-transparent and poorly planned public procurement. Only when order is introduced on the expenditure side, it makes sense to talk about income, investments and development projects.
Without a change in the management system and clearly defined responsibilities, each new assignment only temporarily masks the problem and pushes it into the future. It is not a matter of political ideology, but elementary financial discipline and responsible management of public funds.
This is exactly why "Belgrade on the Move" will be released to the public in the coming period with the Register of Suspicious Public Procurements. It is a systematized review of the most problematic procedures, with documentation, forms and comparative data. It will not be a political pamphlet but a tool. The idea is that tomorrow, when the institutions are free and the prosecutor's office does its work, that register will become a primer for action. That every prosecutor, in five minutes, can see where there is a reason for suspicion, who the actors are and how the money was extracted. The documents exist. Patterns exist. And someone, sooner or later, will have to take a serious look at them.
Big holiday discount on "Vreme" - subscriptions 25 percent cheaper until mid-January. Give it away subscription to yourself or to someone else, read what matters.
